Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Prepare now: Greece crisis just the beginning

June 29, 2015
Staff

WRITER

For nearly five years, Glenn has been warning the world to pay attention to Greece. The economic crisis, which now seems ready to boil over, could set off a chain of dominos bringing down the European Union, collapsing global markets, and even destroy the dollar. With Greek banks closed and citizens lining up at ATMs, that prediction seems closer to reality than ever. Will people pay attention? Glenn issued a dire warning on radio this morning - will it be ignored?

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it may contain errors:

GLENN: I began to tell you while I was at Fox that Greece or Spain would be the catalyst that could bring down the entire European Union. And it could be the first domino that ended in the collapse of the global markets and possibly the end of the dollar. I was mocked and ridiculed. That's crazy talk. This is when I was also saying that the Nazis and the communists would rear their ugly heads in Greece yet again. And all three of those things now are happening.

Here it is. People are standing in line today. They're not able to get into the banks because they fear there would be a run on the banks. So the banks have closed now for ten days. Something that I said will happen here. Mark my words. It will happen here.

People went out this weekend because they didn't take the warning seriously. They went out this weekend and tried to get money from the ATMs and they were only allowed to take out $67. You don't have any cash on hand. You can't go to an ATM. How long -- do you last ten days with $67 in cash?

PAT: No. No.

GLENN: You fill your car up once. That's it.

STU: Well, you can take up to $67 per day. So, I mean, then you're really rolling.

PAT: Then you're set. Then you're set. The ATMs are empty.

STU: Many of them are. I was listening to some report this morning, if you happen to be traveling to Greece this week, you may want to bring a little bit of extra cash because the ATMs should work for foreign banks. But you may want to bring -- I'm not even going right now. If I have a trip planned to Greece, I'm not going. Are you?

GLENN: No, you!

Yeah, I would. I would like to go to Greece right now.

PAT: You would go to Greece right now?

STU: Good. Bye. Get on a plane.

GLENN: Because what's happening there is going to be historic. And it's coming --

STU: Yes! It's going to be historic. A bunch of people will be throwing Molotov cocktails at you. That is history, I suppose.

PAT: They were standing in line just to get that $67 over the weekend. They were standing in line for four hours.

GLENN: So here's the thing that was really killing me. Reading what is happening, watching what is happening, and then to recognize that most Americans are so wildly out of touch with what's happening over there in the rest of the world, they have no idea what it means, what it is, how it's going to affect them. Honestly, it's like we're living in the turn of the century Galveston, Texas. Without any weather radar or anything else, showing us the size of the storm that's coming, everybody is just out on the beach saying it's great. Thousands died in that hurricane in Texas in the early 1900s.

Now, back in the 1900s, it wasn't anybody's fault. There was no warning system. But there is today and people are still out on the beach. We ignore it. We're too busy to mind about what Greece is happening -- what, I don't -- and we're arrogant. We believe that nothing could ever harm us.

In Greece, the human reaction, the hoarding of food, the standing in line, the limited amount of money that you can take out of the ATMs, that's all tangible evidence of the sort of thing I've been asking you to prepare for. Please hear me. This is coming here. It could be here in a month.

It could be here in five years. But it is coming here. Can I ask when has it ever been crazy to ask people to prepare?

We have no one to blame, but ourselves as this thing melts down. We will tear each other apart if there's a vacuum of leadership in this country. And when I talk about a leadership, I mean you. I mean locally. I beg of you, please, I beg of you, prepare. And if nothing happens in the next five years, then mock me. Stand in line. I can't wait to be wrong.

But the direction of the country seems to continue to go my direction. Our grandparents survived the Great Depression. What's coming is worse than the Great Depression. But people will say, well, we had this before. It was the Great Depression. It's worse than the Great Depression. And how did our grandparents survive? Our grandparents survived because the supply chain was local.

We made stuff in our local communities. We grew food. Our parents and our grandparents, many of them had farms. They knew how to plant a garden. All I know about gardens is you plant sometime when the snow is not there. That's all I know.

They also had each other. And they had God.

We barely have either of those things. We're telling -- we're tearing each other apart. We have hard hearts. Moral relativism. And massive debt. They didn't have debt. Please, I'm begging -- I'm begging you -- and I'm saying this to my wife too. Please go to the bank today and have -- get some cash and have some cash on hand.

Please have cash on hand. Please spread your financial risk out. Know what is important to you. Teach your children to be self-sufficient. Find a house of worship and do it today. And really actually connect with the people there and with the truths that are taught. Do it today.

Don't panic. We have more time than we think. But less time than we hope. We must love one another. We must serve one another. We must ask for forgiveness on the things that we have done wrong. We must forgive ourselves. We must forgive others. We must humble ourselves or I am telling you now, it will be done for us.

I was so saddened by the stuff I was reading online about the Supreme Court rulings this weekend. The anger and the vitriol, really on both sides of the Supreme Court ruling, was overwhelming. Wounds that we have been picking at are now wide open. Love wins?

Love wins? Besides Charleston, South Carolina, when have you seen love win?

What happened in the Supreme Court wasn't love. You might have said that it is about love. But not really. It's not love. It's about who you have sex with.

The winners are gloating. Stomping on the throats of their perceived opponents. Believers are reacting with fear and panic and anger.

I want you to hear me carefully: I state to you today a few truths. Here's one of them: I and no one in this audience, no one within the sound of my voice -- and I don't believe anyone on the face of the earth is another man's judge. Morally, I am no man's judge.

Two: There is an absolute right and wrong. It is time-tested.

Everything we're doing now is a brand-new idea! It's never been tested before. There are things that are true, that are time-tested.

I believe, three, in God. There is a Creator. And we are endowed by that Creator with certain unalienable rights. No man can change those rights. No man can destroy them or take them away.

And four: I will not force you to believe any of those things. I will not force you, nor do I care to try to force you to live to any of the tenets of my faith. Please, don't try to force me or others to believe in the doctrines that you hold.

We need each other. The world is changing. It's not just America. Get outside of America and open your eyes. We have to have all of us, each other, to hold onto, or we won't make it through the storm. We need gay, straight, religious, atheist, black, white, Hispanic, short, tall, fat, skinny -- we need everybody!

We must stop listening to the 5 percent of radicals on both sides. 90 percent of this country wants to get along. 90 percent of this country can live with one another. It's the 5 percent or so on each side that's killing us.

I want you to know that I am a -- a horribly flawed man. We all are. We're all the same. I struggle with the same stuff that you struggle with every single day.

But the seasons have changed. And we must take this -- this change of seasons and our time in space much more seriously than we did even last week. I'm begging you, please, please, hear the words of my mouth. Please hear the words of my mouth. Times have changed. We are not even in the same place that we were last week.

I am trying to change as a man. I suppose if you read my musings on Facebook, maybe you have noticed a change in me over the last year or two. But I'm working desperately to change. I am trying everything I can to change and to be a better man. It's not fast enough. But I'm trying my best.

Please let us find a way to each other. Let us reach out. Let's put our differences aside. Can we ground ourselves in principles and not personal or national interests?

The most truthful phrase that I've read in quite some time -- it's been everywhere in the last 72 hours. And it's absolutely true.

No matter where you stand, we must all recognize the truth in the phrase "love wins." But if I may humbly point out that I don't believe that has anything to do with who you sleep with.

Featured image: ATHENS, GREECE - JUNE 29: People wait in line to withdraw 60 euros from an ATM after Greece closed its banks on June 29, 2015 in Athens, Greece. Greece closed its banks and imposed capital controls on Sunday to monitor the growing strains on its crippled financial system, bringing the prospect of being forced out of the euro into plain sight. (Photo by Milos Bicanski/Getty Images)

EXPOSED: Why Eisenhower warned us about endless wars

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Censorship, spying, lies—The Deep State’s web finally unmasked

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.